Appendix 1: Site Specific Allocations DPD Summary of ... 09... · Appendix 1: Site Specific...

Appendix 1: Site Specific Allocations DPD – Summary of Consultation Responses

Introduction

25 SSR Planning on behalf of Buccleuch Property

Concerned that delay in completing the SFRA will mean that it only informs the finalised DPD. The findings should inform this current stage of the DPD as some of the allocated sites may be found to be unsuitable in terms of flood risk in which case alternative sites currently being rejected will need to be identified, and reviewed. These sites may be on land adjacent to Corby Borough’s administrative boundary; it is therefore essential that the SFRA includes land outside of the Corby Borough boundary.

33 Environment Agency

It is reassuring to see that the Council recognise the need to base the finalised SSA DPD on the findings of the forthcoming revisions to the SFRA. It is essential that all land allocations will have been identified by a revised SFRA on the basis of the Sequential Approach advocated by PPS25 and its accompanying Practice Guide. That approach should provide sufficient data and information on the probability of flooding from all sources to enable the Council to apply, to each site under consideration, the PPS 25 Sequential Test and where necessary the Exception Test in a transparent manner, when determining the land use allocations. In practice such an allocation process should initially relate to land identified, by a revised SFRA, as being at the lowest risk of flooding, with land in flood zones 2 and 3 being sequentially allocated only were no reasonably available sites are to be found within Flood Zone 1. Accordingly, the Environment Agency wishes to stress the importance of maintaining, within the evolving SSA DPD, the flexibility for accommodating the removal of any currently proposed allocations that may be found unsuitable in flood risk terms in the light of a revised SFRA. Before finalisation of the SSA DPD, the Environment Agency would wish to be consulted further by the Council in relation to the findings of the SFRA as revised and the Council’s proposals for land allocations in the light of such SFRA. Consequently the Environment Agency OBJECTS to the current wording of para 1.12 and

requests that the 2nd

and 3rd

sentences be amended as follows: “The finalised SSA DPD will take into account the findings of the forthcoming revisions to the SFRA including the results of further consultation with the Environment Agency in respect of the SFRA as revised and the proposed DPD allocations. Any of the proposed allocations contained in the September 2009 SSA DPD consultation document that may be found by such revised SFRA not to be on reasonably available land that is at the lowest risk of flooding from all sources, and are unable to satisfy the requirements of the PPS25 Sequential Approach and Sequential and Exception Tests, will be not be incorporated into the finalised SSA DPD.”

Context

25 SSR Planning

Paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15 refer to the review of the Core Strategy (CSS) which will roll the plan forward to 2026 in line with the Regional Plan. Paragraph 2.15 states that “the Site Specific Allocations DPD for Corby will be in accordance with the adopted and emerging reviewed CSS”. As the emerging review of the CSS will differ from the adopted CSS, not least in that it will be requiring the provision of more dwellings over a longer period, this statement is both contradictory and unachievable. In these circumstances, it is critical that the DPD reflects the revised CSS as it will contain amended housing figures covering the period to

Sustainable Development

28 Weldon Parish Council

There is no mention of embodied energy which it is felt are crucial to genuine environmental improvements. Only this will determine ecological efficiency and comparative options for calculating real net energy savings. It is difficult to see how there may be savings in carbon emissions with the huge carbon footprint that will be created by the massive expansion proposals.

Embodied energy is measured in KWh per tonne, or m3

and is the quantity of energy required to manufacture and supply products, materials etc. to manufacture, transport, install, maintain etc. (Construction Manager March 2008).

Economy and Employment

10 Rutland County Council

Concerned about the potential impact of the major employment and housing developments proposed, particularly the effects of additional traffic on the highway network.


Traffic flows on the A6003 in Rutland will increase by nearly 20% and developers should contribute towards any mitigation required. These effects may be may be further exacerbated by the increased levels of housing and employment (particularly B8 developments) now being proposed and the resultant over-supply of housing and employment land.


Concerned that the document does not clearly show how the new housing developments and jobs from the new employment areas would be developed together. The oversupply of employment land in Corby will potentially result in an imbalance between housing and employment and also have a knock-on effect for the viability of employment land in Rutland and increased cross-border commuting.


The impact of the developments on Rutland should be considered and policies included requiring developers to contribute towards any mitigation measures that might be needed as a result of the developments.

11 Highways Agency The total amount of land proposed to be allocated for employment use represents an oversupply relative to the amount specified in the Core Strategy. This raises concerns as to the consistency of the document with the Core Strategy and the Regional Plan. A key requirement of Development Plan Documents, as set out in PPS12, is that DPD are consistent with such strategies

11 Highways Agency Individually, none of the specific sites identified as being appropriate for employment use are anticipated to have a significant impact upon the operation of the truck road network in the area, specifically the A14 at Junction 7. If brought forward with associated housing growth the sites may assist in actually increasing the self containment of the town, and the need for residents to travel further afield to access employment opportunities. Any site specific proposal will however need, at application stage, to be supported by a robust Transport Assessment, which takes due account of other commitments in the area and which seeks to identify a bespoke package of measures to mitigate the traffic impact arising. Any cumulative impact arising from development on a combination of sites (whether employment or other land uses, including residential) may also need to be incorporated. In principal the Agency supports the allocation of those sites

2026

15 Northamptonshire Police

It is encouraging to note that mixed use development is being encouraged through EMP06. Mixed use development ensures that a wider spectrum of people use the area over a longer period of the day and as such there should be more active surveillance of the area, meaning opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour should be reduced


Pleased that the design of employment sites and car storage areas is being considered. Pleased that there is a requirement for a master plan to be produced for any of the proposed employment sites. The consultation document recognises the CSS Policy 13 needs to be adhered to and can be supported by Secured by Design Commercial which is soon to be published. In addition the Sustainable Design SPD should also be referred to in this section. Through this approach issues of designing out crime and designing in fire safety should be taken into account. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor for Corby should be consulted on any master plan at the earliest stage.


It is encouraging that any master plan will be required to consider the capacity for HGV parking on the site. This is an area that has traditionally been forgotten about. In paragraph 5.104, there is recognition for the parking and traffic issues that have been caused by a lack of HGV parking. However there is also a crime issue with regard to lack of secure parking for HGV vehicles. There have been incidences across the county of theft from HGVs where there is a lack of secure parking. As such the commitment to providing parking facilities is welcomed and the provision of the facility should seek to design out crime through being built to ParkMark standards.


A further area for consideration through the provision of new employment sites is the need for sprinkler systems to be fitted within commercial buildings. This not only helps to protect lives in the event of a fire but also helps to prevent loss of property. Through preventing loss of property, significant reduction in impact on the environment can be achieved, helping to meet the wider sustainability agenda. If designed in at the outset these can be installed at low cost. As such, this should be strongly encouraged to meet community safety objectives.

16 East Midlands Regional Assembly

It is noted that the policy is proposing the allocation of more employment land than is required by the Core Strategy. This seems to be a summation of all sites already allocated and retained through the saved Local Plan or new sites identified in the preparation of the LDF. It is understood that the oversupply relates to the need to provide a 5 year ‘slack’ to allow enough flexibility for sites to come forward. This is referred to in Paragraph 3.90 of the Core Strategy. The document states that flexibility is needed to meet targets specified in the Roger Tym Study, but it would be useful to provide further justification for the oversupply bearing in mind the important relationships across boundaries between all the Local Authority areas in North Northamptonshire identified in the MKSM Sub regional Strategy. It would be useful to clarify whether the allocations are up to 2021. However, the need to offer a range and choice of sites for inward investment is recognised

19 Smiths Gore on behalf of Great Oakley Estate

Support the identification of Site E19 ‘Corby Western Urban Extension’ in Table 5.5. This indicates a proposed employment site of 13.8ha in total comprising B1 and B2 use. Careful consideration would need to be given to B2 uses in terms of their nature, location and compatibility with adjacent uses

20 Smiths Gore on behalf of Great Oakley Estate and Rockingham

Support the identification of Site E19 ‘Corby Western Urban Extension’. This indicates a proposed employment site of 13.8ha in total comprising B1 and B2 use. General Industrial uses may not sit comfortably side by side with other uses, particularly residential content. Therefore, careful consideration would need to be given to B2 uses in terms of their nature, location and compatibility with adjacent uses

Castle Estate 25 SSR Planning on

behalf of Buccleuch Property

The Regional Plan identifies the important cross boundary relationships in North Northamptonshire. In identifying housing provision for each local authority area, the importance of the cross boundary relationships are considered; it is stated that “Figures for Corby and Northampton include any provision made in urban extensions across local authority boundaries. Such provision would be additional to the figures for the ‘receiving authorities’ in the above table”. Land is promoted at Corby South East and at Storefield as long term mixed use development opportunities. In considering the sites submitted to the SELA (paragraph 5.32) it appears that only the sites in the Borough’s administrative area have been considered. Sites which adjoin Corby Borough and would provide sustainable urban extensions capable of accommodating a mix of uses, have been excluded presumably because the sites fall within Kettering Borough’s boundary. However, it is considered essential that the DPD considers cross boundary issues and the need to facilitate the delivery of those sites within the most sustainable locations if growth for employment and housing is to be effectively delivered. The DPD currently fails to achieve this. It is requested that the Council works with the JPU during the review of the Core Strategy and throughout the further preparation of the DPD to ensure that cross boundary issues are properly addressed

27 John Martin & Associates on behalf of Rockingham Estates

Support the identification of Site E19 ‘Corby Western Urban Extension’. This indicates a proposed employment site of 13.8ha in total comprising B1 and B2 use. General Industrial uses, which in broad terms may not sit comfortably side by side with other uses, particularly residential content. Therefore, careful consideration would need to be given to B2 uses in terms of their nature, location and compatibility with adjacent uses


E1 North and South of Sondes Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Allocation greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment primarily focusing on surface water management.


E2 Land East of Weldon is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within Flood Zone 1 and to take into account all sources of flooding. The allocation raises issues in relation to the means of access which may need to cross a floodplain. The issues are currently being pursued with the Council and the Local Highway Authority in relation to a planning application on the allocation area.


E3 Stanion Lane Plantation is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E4 Cenrix Park, Phoenix Parkway is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works

or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook North should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions.


E5 North of Birchington Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook North should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions.


E6 Cockerell Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E7 Seymour Plantation is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E8 CBC Plots, Oakley Vale is partially within Flood Zone 2. Site subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The Test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Planning application to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate development and the means of access within Flood Zone 1.


E9 Parkland Gateway is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E10 Corby Central is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E11 Bangrave Road, Weldon is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E12 Oakley Hay is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E13 Rockingham Motor Speedway is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook North should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions.


E14 Genner Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


E15 South of St. James Industrial Estate is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The Tests(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook South designated a ‘main river’. The site includes a culverted section of the Willow Brook South - no development should be proposed over the culvert or within 9.0 metres. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook South should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.


E16 Southern Gateway, Oakley Hay is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.


E17 Priors Hall is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Site already enjoys outline planning permission. Further planning applications should be accompanied by a FRA which should be consistent with the approved FRAs for Zones 1 and 2 and the principles set out in PPS25, as appropriate. The design of the development should take a sequential approach aiming to locate development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures,

in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. The site includes a culverted section of the Willow Brook North - no development should be proposed over the culvert or within 9.0 metres. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook South should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.


E18 Willowbrook North is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook North should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions.


E19 Western SUE is within Flood Zone 1, but adjacent to the start of a number of culverted rivers which may pose a flood risk to this site. The forthcoming revised SFRA for Corby is intended consider the possibility and impact of any water backing up within this drainage system and causing flooding on the site. Planning permission should be granted only where development proposals observe the findings of the forthcoming revised SFRA for Corby. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.

38 SSR Planning on behalf of Sywell Land Ltd

There should be a short policy, possibly within the employment section which identifies the requirement for a Lorry Park and includes the site (Land at Fircroft Park, Corby) as there are no other known Lorry Park facilities planned. The document should recognise the approved reserved matters permission.

43 The Ramblers Association

A shortcut is needed to go to the north-west corner of HA2 to exit closer to Gretton football GN13 at the junction of Kirby Lane and Gretton Road. This will greatly reduce road walking.


Through pedestrian routes /cycleways are needed to connect Weldon and this area to Upper Laundimer & Harry's Park Woods, Brigstock, Benefield and the surrounding countryside via Bear Lane, to reduce road walking and open up the countryside without the need for car use. The footway on the Oundle Road should be extended out from Weldon


E3 Stanion Lane Plantation needs good purposeful routes to Town, Old village etc, from Stanion and Little Stanion plus some recreational use


This area needs its current bridleway and footpath access to Middleton, Cottingham, East Carlton and the Welland Valley to be retained and improved on. This includes routes from Tower Hill area as well as Danesholme and Oakley Hay

44 CPRE In the urban area there are still sites vacant and derelict which should be developed before the loss of farmland. There are vast areas devoted to vehicle storage alone, if this is required multi-storey facilities should be constructed to release land for productive activities

45 Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of Northamptonshire County Council

The overall proposal for the wider site, including the adjacent land in other ownerships, is welcomed and it is confirmed that NCC will work with the relevant authorities to bring forward a suitable scheme based upon the current draft masterplan. In terms of the Corby Walk this an important element of the site and whilst NCC recognise the importance of this link and will as far as possible facilitate its development, there are important issues concerning design, cost and land take which have not been resolved and which will need to be taken into account in considering what, if any other contributions and/or benefits are to be sought from the wider site.

47 Pegasus Planning Group on behalf of Greatline Developments Ltd

Support allocation E15 for the following reasons. First, there is a clear need for additional employment land to be allocated to meet the requirements in the Core Strategy. CSS notes that existing employment sites areas provide the main supply of employment land and that the retention of older mixed use areas within towns allows for journeys by foot or cycle. In principle, this approach is supported in respect of E15 which adjoins an existing established employment area which is currently well let and occupied. Policy 11 of the CSS also requires additional employment land be allocated within or adjoining the main urban areas in order to achieve the levels of job growth set out in Table 6. For Corby, an additional 1,900 jobs in Class B2 are required, an additional 3,640 jobs for Class B8 and 2,450 extra jobs in Class B1. The Site Allocations DPD consultation draft then translates these employment requirements into land requirements over the period to 2021 (and 2026) in Table 5.1. The conversion ratios used and 1 job per 18m² for B1, 1 per 35m² for B2 and 1 per 88m² for Class B8. A plot ratio of 40% has also been assumed. These assumptions appear to be a realistic basis upon which to allocate future employment land requirements and are therefore supported. Second, the characteristics of E15 and immediate locality are such that the site is suitable for employment development, with existing access, and neighbouring development which is compatible with a range of employment uses. More specifically, Site E15 will benefit the regeneration of Corby being centrally located within the established urban area and enabling the ‘rounding off’ of the existing employment area. In addition, there may be opportunities to bring forward this site more quickly by considering a more mixed use approach towards the development potential of this area, with an ability to enhance its contribution to enabling an urban renaissance and to support sustainable transport opportunities.


Policy EMP01, through Table 5.5 and the Proposals Map, includes a range of sites including Site E15. The proposed mix and range of employment uses for B1, B2 and B8 is supported, having regard to the opportunities of the site in terms of its location, size and market sector.


An oversupply of employment land is proposed for all three Class B1 uses to allow flexibility to meet the job growth targets. This approach is supported. There is a need to provide for choice of sites to be able to meet specific employer requirements and to allow for unforeseen constraints to a development proceeding on a particular allocation to be addressed elsewhere on other sites

47 Pegasus Planning Notwithstanding the merits of E15 as suitable employment allocation, there is also a strong case for part of E15 to be brought

Group on behalf of Greatline Developments Ltd

forward for residential use. Policy EMP02 acknowledges that there may be other forms of development considered to that outlined in Policy EMP01 and Table 5.5 in respect of certain sites, including site E15. Site E15 borders the ‘Corby Central Area’ and the northern part of the allocation lies within a walking radius of the proposed Station Gateway. The site is also in good proximity to Corby’s schools, health centres, town centre facilities and is able to readily access the existing adjacent employment areas. The development of the site would not unduly adversely affect any environmental designations and a mixed use form of development is likely to offer a better prospect of being able to address any site specific nature conservation issues by having a more flexible pattern of land use in a mixed use scheme. There are not significant contamination issues and the majority of the site is in Flood Risk Zone 1, and is therefore suitable for residential development in terms of PPS25. Part of the site towards the south east corner is likely to be in a higher flood risk category (Flood 3a) and employment uses are regarded as appropriate. In principle therefore, the site is suitable for residential development subject to careful design. There exists the potential to allocate up to 3.7 hectares of residential land to the west of St Marks Road, in a manner which would allow for a suitable and sustainable residential environment to be created. The new employment areas further to the south would extend to 4.9 hectares. In addition, a new commercial site at the gateway to the site would be created extending to 0.3 hectares. A development concept plan has been put forward to demonstrate the potential for a mixed use allocation and how good quality design principles can be achieved.

48 GP Planning Ltd Object to the discounting of Brookfield Resource Recovery Site. The site was not incorporated into the 'Northamptonshire Sites for Waste Development DPD' because of the timing of the proposals but this should not be a reason to preclude the site in this document; and it is promoted as an employment site

50 M3 Agency LLP Site J20 Barn Close was allocated for employment purposes in the Local Plan and proposed to be saved by the Secretary of State. The site is currently used for car storage purposes. In the consultation document the Council have concluded that the site is now to be discounted “……due to no realistic prospect of…coming forward for the development of B class uses”. We are uncertain as to how the Council have arrived at this conclusion. Having regard to the existing lease arrangements for the property together with the current state of the UK car industry there is a possibility that this site will be available for employment uses within the period of the Plan. We would request that the employment allocation be reinstated for this site.

59 John Martin & Associates on behalf of Rockingham Estates and Great Oakley Estates

Support the identification of Site E19 ‘Corby Western Urban Extension’. This indicates a proposed employment site of 13.8ha in total comprising B1 and B2 use. General Industrial uses, which in broad terms may not sit comfortably side by side with other uses, particularly residential content. Therefore, careful consideration would need to be given to B2 uses in terms of their nature, location and compatibility with adjacent uses

Housing

5 P.E. Enterprises Ltd

Weldon does not need a development at Weldon Park. Government strategy may change in the next year.

7 Weldon Caravan Storage

No more houses for Weldon, at Weldon Park. There is enough already with Priors Hall





9 East Northamptonshire Council

No comments to make regarding Priors Hall, given that Corby Borough Council and East Northamptonshire Council have both already agreed to this development in principle.


Concerned at the additional phase of development at North East Corby. A further 1000 dwellings are proposed over and above the 5100 dwellings at Priors Hall that is anticipated in the CSS. The proposed developments are likely to have a significant impact upon highway infrastructure, schools and health services in the rural north of the East Northants


Concerned as to the impact of the Priors Hall development upon services within East Northamptonshire, particularly Oundle. These concerns are reiterated, given the proposed additional levels of development at North East Corby.


Phasing of the proposed new Local Centre at Weldon East in relation to other aspects of the SUE (i.e. housing and employment) is not clear. It is considered that Weldon East ought to be subject to a Master Plan approach, similar to those proposed for Kingswood or Corby West, given the scale of development being proposed at this location.


The Proposals Map appears to show the SUE as effectively merging with the existing village. It is unclear whether a separation between Weldon village and the SUE will form part of the detailed development proposals. The Master Plan ought to address this relationship between Weldon East SUE and the existing village.


Concerned about the potential impact on its area of the major employment and housing developments proposed, particularly the effects of additional traffic on the highway network.


An assessment of the impact of planned developments in Corby on traffic flows on the A6003 in Rutland previously undertaken by the Council concluded that they will increase by nearly 20% and that developers should contribute towards any mitigation required. These effects may be may be further exacerbated by the increased levels of housing and employment (particularly B8 developments) now being proposed and the resultant over-supply of housing and employment land.


There is concern that the document does not clearly show how the new housing developments and jobs from the new employment areas would be developed together. The oversupply of employment land in Corby will potentially result in an imbalance between housing and employment and also have a knock-on effect for the viability of employment land in Rutland and increased cross-border commuting.


The LDF should consider the impact of the developments on Rutland and include policies requiring developers to contribute towards any mitigation measures that might be needed as a result of the developments.

11 Highways Agency The level of housing land identified represents an over provision from the requirement identified in the Core Strategy and Regional Plan, which raises concerns as to the consistency of the document

11 Highways Agency None of the sites included within the table are anticipated on their own to significantly impact upon the operation of the A14. Support the inclusion of the sites on the basis of their sustainability and regeneration credentials and on the emphasis on well located brownfield sites in advance of greenfield releases.

11 Highways Agency The provision for an SUE to the North East of Corby provides an opportunity for a mix of residential, employment and community facilities on-site and accords with the Highway Agency’s aim for balanced, sustainable communities, with opportunities for sustainable transport opportunities to be maximised. Any future proposal will however need, at application stage, to be supported by a Transport Assessment. Any cumulative impact arising from development on a combination of sites may also need to be incorporated

13 Development on Pytchley Court would create congestion on Denford Road through the loss of this car park. At the moment the space is a buffer between Pytchley Court shopping precinct and the estate. As the precinct is recognised by the police as a youth gathering area building further development would only increase problems in the estate. The car park is also used by visitors/residents in this part of the estate and it’s also used fairly well all day. Opposite the car park we have a public house and a club which create further parking problems on Denford Road. This car park is in fact the only recognised car park in the whole of the Park Lodge Estate

14 New Lodge Park Tenants and Residents Association

Development on Pytchley Court would create congestion on Denford Road with the loss of the car park which by the way is the only public car park in the whole of the Lodge Park Estate. The space acts as a buffer between the shopping precinct and the estate. The shop deliveries use the area behind the shops and to close the car park would create huge problems with parking. Opposite the site is the Club Silverband that has a small car park and tends to use this car park. Also Kingfisher public house. The Tenants Association unanimously object to the proposed site and the building of houses on the site

15 Northants Police and Northants Fire and Rescue Service

The principle of providing new houses in large sustainable urban extensions is supported. This enables a critical mass to be achieved to develop communities to ensure community cohesion. In addition, it provides a level that can provide for new infrastructure for the community to ensure social interaction


It is understood why the consultation document does not propose to include additional policies on design of residential areas beyond that which is already included in the Core Strategy and Sustainable Design SPD. However it is important that issues of design relating to community safety are seriously considered through this process. The principles of Secured by Design, including issues of designing out opportunities for arson should be considered as part of the process, particularly in privately developed areas. There is an increase currently in houses being built privately and then sold to a RSL who then have to retrofit to Secured by Design standards. This could be avoided through pushing for Secured by Design on private dwellings as well. The CPDA and relevant NFRS officers need to be involved at an early stage in any planning application for new residential development, in accordance with the recently produced ‘Planning for Safer Places’ protocol


Affordable housing is recognised as an important issue for the plan. The suggestion within the document is that market sale and affordable housing will be evenly distributed and fully integrated across a site. This needs further clarification. The preference would be for small clusters of affordable units within a site (although evenly distributed and integrated) so that the management of the units can be made easier for the provider but still ensuring that integration of the units within the overall

estate can be achieved 15 Northamptonshire

Police It is important that some of the housing is provided to enable more people to live at home for longer. This contributes to social inclusion. However it is important that what are being provided are Lifetime Homes and that they sit within Lifetime Neighbourhoods.


Consideration needs to be given to incorporating residential sprinkler systems within affordable units, houses in multiple occupation, nursing homes and sheltered accommodation. Statistically people in these types of accommodation are more likely to be seriously injured or die in fires. Sprinklers can save lives in these instances. In addition, sprinklers help to save the building and therefore contribute towards the sustainable development principles of the plan.


Policy H10 is welcomed as affordable units will be provided to standards of the Homes and Communities Agency. This includes requirements to build units to Secured by Design principles


It is important that the existing housing stock is used effectively. Therefore the policy H12 to ensure the conversion of existing housing in suitable locations is to be welcomed. This should help to reduce instances of unoccupied or derelict housing and the associated issues with crime and anti-social behaviour that occur in these dwellings


Policy H14 is welcomed. Involvement through the CPDA to regenerate these areas is a must to not duplicate historic problems in the area. The need to ensure that active natural surveillance is built into these areas is key. It is also vital that the area is appealing for people to use and that the redesign allows for a sense of ownership to be gained in the environment by the residents. A clear split between public and private space must be ensured


Paragraph 6.16 and Table 6.1 appear to confirm that the document is covering the period up to 2021. Justification for the proposed overprovision in Policy H 01 and Table 6.1 in comparison with the RSS and Core Strategy will be essential. Policy 13a of the RSS does state that local authorities can test higher numbers through their development plan documents provided they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development in PPS1 and tested through sustainability appraisal. In particular it will be essential to show that there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to support the level of provision proposed


It is reiterated that Policy MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 4 of the RSS states that the capacity of the existing built up area of Corby to accommodate additional development will be utilised to the full, through measures to assess and bring forward surplus employment sites and other previously developed land and through the opportunities for intensification and mixed use provided by regeneration and redevelopment


Support Policy H01 and Table 6.1 (Site H(iii)) which proposes 4,000 dwellings at West Corby in the form of a sustainable urban extension


Support the identification of Site HA23 – Oakley Vale Neighbourhood Centre. The completions figures appear to be incorrect. The site is 0.5 ha and, with a proposed density of 48 units/ha, would provide some 24 dwellings. However, the completions figures suggest just 18 dwellings so there is an inconsistency in the figures. This site could potentially be delivered prior to 2015


Support Site HA27 at Oakley Vale – the former Local Plan allocation for the science park. This 11.08ha site is earmarked for some 330 dwellings. We would comment that, while there is no planning permission for residential use, the site does benefit from outline planning permission for a science park


30 dwellings per hectare (in PPS3) is an indicative minimum target and is not prescriptive


Table 6.4 can only be a general guide. SUEs are likely to have a greater variety of housing types than those listed in the table including, for example, 1 bed units, 5 bed units, sheltered housing, care homes, live/work units and so forth. We are uncertain how the 15 unit threshold might be applied to a 4,000 unit SUE


Do not understand the basis of Policy H10 which does not appear to be a planning policy relevant to a Site Allocations DPD. It appears to refer to the controls imposed on RSLs in procuring grant-aided affordable housing. The policy should be deleted from this DPD


Support Policy H13 concerning the longer term housing requirements for the post 2021 period. Our own masterplanning work has revealed capacity for an additional 2,000 dwellings over and above the current proposals for 4,000 dwellings at West Corby SUE. The design of West Corby, in terms of highways, infrastructure provision and site requirements, will take account of the possibility of longer term expansion

20 Smiths Gore on behalf of Great Oakley Estate and Rockingham Castle Estate

Support policy and Table 6.1 (Site H (iii)) which proposes 4,000 dwellings as the Corby Western Sustainable Urban Extension. This description is slightly different to others within the DPD; there should be consistency of reference


Table 6.2 identifies the Proposed Corby Western SUE at HA29, which we support. However, the table indicates an overall minimum density of 35 units per hectare. We believe that it is inappropriate to dictate minimum densities above those set out in national guidance i.e. PPS3 - Housing


Comment that 30 dwellings per hectare, as set out in PPS3, is an indicative minimum target and are not prescriptive. Paragraph 47 of PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place. This paragraph continues by stating where Local Planning Authorities wish to plan for, or agree to, densities below this minimum, this will need to be justified, having regard to paragraph 46 i.e. design-led considerations


Comment on that Table 6.4 can only be a general guide. Sustainable Urban Extensions are likely to have a greater variety of housing types than those listed in the table including, for example, 1 bed units, 5 bed units, sheltered housing, care homes, live/work units and so forth. We are uncertain how the 15 unit threshold might be applied to a 4,000 unit Sustainable Urban Extension to the west of Corby

20 Smiths Gore on The basis of the policy is not understood. It does not appear to be a planning policy relevant to a Site Allocations DPD. It

behalf of Great Oakley Estate and Rockingham Castle Estate

appears to refer to the controls imposed on RSLs in procuring grant-aided affordable housing. The policy should be deleted from this DPD


Support policy concerning the longer term housing requirements for the post 2021 period. Our own master planning work has revealed capacity for an additional 2,000 dwellings over and above the current proposals for 4,000 dwelling at Corby Western SUE. The design of West Corby, in terms of highways, infrastructure provision and site requirements, will take account of the possibility of longer term expansion

21 Corby Old Village Residents Association

Object very strongly to the sale of the land for development. The field has been an integral part of our village for centuries; back in 1905 it was the football pitch for the village. Children still today play in the field and residents walk the field daily. The field is home to Hedgehogs, Badgers, Crested Newt’s, Deer and Foxes to name a few, where are they going to go, we are supposed to protect our wild life


The field is the most serious flood plain in the area, it floods several times a year, residents at the bottom of Bessemer Grove have to install sand bags at there doors to stop the water entering there property. The houses in Stanion Lane were built 4 metres above ground level because of the flood risk and the road floods several times a year. The Environmental Agency has cleared the brook to help the situation but this has made no different to the flooding problem. We have under ground streams in Stanion Lane and the fields which make the problem even worse


The lane at the back of the houses in Stanion Lane & Bessemer Grove which the farmers use to take there sheep, horses and cows into the field is a private road owned by the residents of Stanion Lane and as such cannot be used as an entry point to the field


Nobody objected to the allocation of this site in the 2006 Preferred Options consultation document because nobody in the village was notified


Question the integrity of the Council, including a site that has already been marked out in the field for housing going from a electrical pylon in the middle of the field to Stanion Lane. Furthermore the site was also visited by a Council Planning Engineer which tells the residents that a planning application is in the pipe line. We had the destruction of Stanion Plantation thanks to this Council and we were promised an alternative site on the Bulwick estate and nothing happened, we are still waiting


NCC in a meeting yesterday rejected the Governments plan for 60,000 more houses in Northamptonshire issuing a statement that the infrastructure could not cope, we would not be able to generate enough employment and that we should not build on greenland and floodplains by villages. If CBC had done a survey, consulted the residents and the EA they would not have made such a fundamental mistake and would have reached the same conclusion as NCC

23 Friends, Families and Travellers Planning

Welcome the attention being given to gypsy and traveller accommodation needs


The Site Allocations DPD para 1.3 states that the DPD will provide details of how Corby will be developed to 2021 and will look forward to 2026. The Gypsy and Traveller Sites section limits itself to the period to 2012. Policy 16 of the East Midlands Plan states that: ‘Local Development Frameworks should make provision for the minimum additional pitch requirements set out in Appendix 2, taking into account of the need arising from future growth beyond 2012 as set out in paragraph 3.1.18.’. Hence there is a need for this to be done on Corby which may well imply the development of a further site or sites. This issue will need to be given due consideration in the next iteration of the Sites Allocation DPD.


Agree that existing sites should be preserved.


Confused by the apparent contradiction between the information in para 6.111 which indicates that planning permission has been given for two sites and the information contained in the CLG Caravan Count Statistics for Jan 2009 which indicate that there is only one caravan on a site with planning permission (authorised private site). It would be useful if this contradiction can be clarified

24 Barton Willmore on behalf of Persimmon Homes

The Core Strategy proposes that 16,800 dwellings will be provided in Corby between 2001 and 2021. We note that this is a very short time horizon, and that when the document was adopted in June 2008 it had less than 15 years to run. The Council should therefore be considering whether to extend the life of this current document to consider development over a longer time horizon to 2026. The strategic context exists to do this. With this caveat we consider that the provision of 16,800 new homes adequately reflects the Core Strategy and we note that it is a backloaded trajectory that implies a substantial increase in completion rates from those seen between 2001 and 2006. We therefore have no further comment to make on housing provision.


Welcome the fact that land for 1,000 houses is proposed for allocation at Weldon. This development is subject to a current planning application and we hope that this will be in a position to start delivering much needed houses for the community in the next few years. Confirm that the start date for the development of soon after 2011 implied in the Table 6.2 is realistic


Note that Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 contradict each other regarding the mid-plan cut-off date of 2014/2015


Note that it is anticipated that 550 dwellings can be completed by 2015 with 450 completions between 2015 and 2021 indicating completion before the end of the plan period. The average completion rate in the 2011 to 2015 period which must be taken as the Council’s assessment of peak levels of development, is at least 137.5 dwellings a year assuming development is spread over the whole of the four year period. At that rate some 1,375 dwellings could be delivered by 2021 quite comfortably. It is entirely plausible to envisage a development at Weldon with three outlets delivering 50 dwellings each a year which, combined with an early start, could see 1,500 dwellings delivered by 2021

24 Barton Willmore Land to the south and east of the Weldon application site could deliver a further 1,000 houses, giving a total of about 2,000

on behalf of Persimmon Homes

houses. Development of this level, as opposed to the 1,000 houses currently proposed, will bring sustainability benefits through greater self containment and improved critical mass. The majority of this development can be completed before 2021, at least 1,375 homes are indicated by the Council’s own phasing plan and it could be 1,500 homes or more


In the last line the reference to 1,000 dwellings east of Weldon should be changed to 2,000 dwellings east of Weldon. A Consequent amendment to the Key Diagram is also required


The phasing proposed for the West SUE is unrealistic and the full 4,000 houses proposed will not be delivered within the plan period. The main reason for this is the likely start date for the development. The policy for the area says that development should not start before 2011, but the phasing in Table 6.2 expects that only 100 houses will be completed before 2015 with the remaining 3,900 houses expected to be built between 2015 and 2021. This is assumed to reflect aspirations that the West SUE will come forward once the North East SUE is established. This is a realistic lead time for a development of this size which has not yet proceeded very far through the planning process. This contrasts with the North Eastern SUE which already has planning permission, and where an early start is therefore more realistic. The phasing in Table 6.2 requires 3,900 houses to be built in six years at an average of 650 houses a year. As an average build rate over a sustained period this is not achievable. The upper limit is likely to be about 500 houses a year on average. Assuming first completions in 2014-15, which is only 4½ years away, then 3,100 houses would be the maximum completed. While 4½ years may seem a long time, by then masterplans have to be produced, outline and reserved matters approved, options exercised and site infrastructure provided before houses can be constructed, and it may in practice be difficult to deliver first completions in this time scale. It is our view that the plan should recognise this and that the site will not be completed within the plan period, though it could be substantially complete. This would be entirely consistent with paragraph 3.66 of the Core Strategy and the need expressed in WUE01 for the proposals to take account of additional growth in regional housing targets after 2021. Given that forward forecasting of housing delivery is an imprecise process, that we have allowed an optimistic start date for the Western SUE and that 2021 is an arbitrary cut-off date then we consider that there should be no impediment to allocating a larger development at Weldon within this plan


Policy appears very prescriptive. In particular viability is an important consideration as indicated by Paragraph 29 of PPS3. Welcome the fact that this is recognised in the second paragraph of the policy. However, Paragraph 29 requires authorities to go further than this and set their targets for affordable housing in the light of an assessment of the likely economic viability of land. There is no evidence that such an assessment has been carried out in the DPD. Failure to do so not only contravenes paragraph 29 but means that claims for an exemption to the provision of affordable housing could become the norm, rather than the exception they are intended to be, particularly in the current housing market. The policy would be improved by the inclusion of the word “normally” in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which would then read: “The housing split and tenure shall normally be in accordance with the table below…”

24 Barton Willmore on behalf of

East of Weldon should be included in the locations where land requirements beyond 2021 are sought, as well as the west of the town, unless the council makes a commitment in a revised Policy HO7 to allocate the full 2,000 houses we are requesting

Persimmon Homes

25 SSR Planning on In line with PPS3, it is essential that the DPD should look forward for the next 15 years and in so doing reflect the amended behalf of housing figures, contained in the emerging review of the Core Strategy, which will cover the period to 2026. The DPD currently Buccleuch fails to do this and only plans for the next 10 years, not 15 years as it should. In accommodating the delivery of further housing Property and employment growth to 2026 the DPD will need to identify additional sites at Corby, in sustainable locations adjoining the

town. It is therefore requested that in revising the DPD to reflect the amended housing figures contained in the emerging Core Strategy, development for the period to 2026 is facilitated even where it entails cross boundary considerations


It is essential that the DPD is prepared in accordance with PPS3 and plans for the delivery of further housing growth at Corby up to the period to 2026, and thus reflects the amended housing figures contained in the revised Core Strategy. It is noted that the DPD identifies a continued supply of housing for the periods 2011-2015 and 2015-2021. However, in planning for the next 15 years, and reflecting the amended housing figures contained in the emerging revised Core Strategy, it will it will be necessary for the DPD to identify additional housing sites for the period 2021-2026


It is essential that the DPD is prepared following guidance contained in PPS3 and therefore reflects the emerging Core Strategy which will cover the period to 2026. The DPD currently only plans for the period to 2021, as reflected in Policy H 01 and Table 6.1. It is requested that the DPD is amended to cover the period to 2026 and accommodate the revised housing figures contained in the emerging reviewed Core Strategy. In so doing it will be necessary for the DPD to identify additional sites within and adjoining Corby capable of accommodating growth beyond 2021


PPS3 expects the identification of sites to enable a continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years. It is noted that Table 6.3 contained in Policy H 05 identifies an over provision of approximately 388 units to 2021. However, it is considered essential that the period to 2026 is properly planned for and that the DPD reflects the amended housing figures contained in the emerging revised Core Strategy; identifying sites which will enable the delivery of housing for this period


The Regional Plan refers to the importance of the relationships across the district boundaries in North Northamptonshire. There is concern that in assessing the ‘Other Options Considered’ for the North East Corby and Corby Western Urban Extensions the Council concludes that “The alternative to the provision of SUEs is to identify a larger number of smaller sites for housing, including some that may lie outside the Corby Borough boundary, or in less sustainable locations. Such an option would not be compatible with the adopted NNCSS”. Cross boundary solutions are acceptable in principle as reflected in MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 1 and where they would provide sustainable urban extensions with excellent access to Corby’s town centre and existing urban area, as at Corby South East and Storefield, should be favourably considered in order that post 2021 options are not inappropriately curtailed. It is critical that the Council works with the Joint Planning Unit during the review of the Core Strategy and in developing the further stages of its DPD in order to ensure that cross boundary issues are properly addressed

27 John Martin & Associates on behalf of

Support proposed 4,000 dwellings at the Western SUE. This description is lightly different to others within the DPD; there should be consistency of reference.

Rockingham Estates


Support HA29. However, the table indicates an overall minimum density of 35dph. It is inappropriate to dictate minimum densities above those set out in national guidance e.g. PPS3


Do not understand the basis of Policy H10 which does not appear to be a planning policy relevant to a Site Allocations DPD. It appears to refer to the controls imposed on RSLs in procuring grant-aided affordable housing. The policy should be deleted from this DPD


Table 6.2 identifies the Proposed Corby Western Sustainable Urban Extension at HA29, which we support. However, the table indicates an overall minimum density of 35 units per hectare. We believe that it is inappropriate to dictate minimum densities above those set out in national guidance i.e. PPS3


Comment that 30 dwellings per hectare, as set out in PPS3, is an indicative minimum target and are not prescriptive. Paragraph 47 of PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place. This paragraph continues by stating where Local Planning Authorities wish to plan for, or agree to, densities below this minimum, this will need to be justified, having regard to paragraph 46 i.e. design-led considerations


The Parish Council believes that there is currently a political acceptance that the extensive housing development proposed in recent years, in particular the MKSM study, should now be viewed with caution and LDF should be produced with this in mind


Housing targets should be treated with caution and Weldon Park should not be a foregone conclusion and that the approved Priors Hall development is likely to meet housing demand within the plan period.


The Parish Council acknowledge that (R17 existing football field) is carried forward from the 1997 adopted Local Plan


The Parish Council acknowledge that Part R16 (Dash Farm Close) is carried forward from the 1997 adopted Local Plan


There is some confusion regarding HA34 which cites SHLAA 0182 Site Reference. The area of land in Larratt Road identified in the SHLAA is shown as Site Reference 337 – land west of allotments Larratt Road. It is assumed that the two references are in fact the same piece of land and it is surprising to see this now included as a potential site in the LDF consultation document. The SHLAA identified this site as a Category 3 greenfield site and development would further “enclose” the existing village


Review of housing needs and market assessment is due and that it would be anachronistic to adopt a LDF that is based on statistics and forecasts already proving to be flawed in the current economic climate. The Parish Council welcomes the commitment to stakeholder engagement both at the current stage and in future reviews. It is imperative that Parish Councils are seen as major stakeholders (compare this to the SHLAA which excluded local opinion)


Housing targets should be treated with caution and Weldon Park should not be a foregone conclusion and that the approved Priors Hall development is likely to meet housing demand within the plan period


Welcomes the commitment to genuine “affordable” housing provision. Houses that young local people who wish to remain in the village they grew up in can afford are rare

29 Alan Gunne-Jones

There should be some provision for housing in the rural settlements and in particular in Middleton / Cottingham

29 Alan Gunne-Jones Question whether provision for Corby Rural is sufficient to sustain village communities

29 Alan Gunne-Jones The commitment to dialogue with key stakeholders is welcomed in an effort to establish alternatives for improving supply. This should however include landowners who have land that could contribute to housing delivery

30 Strongly protest to the proposed building of houses on the site HA26 off Stanion Lane. There are a number of reasons that the site is not suitable for houses; there are a number of natural springs on the site; flood water has reached the back doors of the houses at the bottom of Bessemer in recent years. Houses being built on land used for natural drainage must not be allowed, it would mean the new houses would be flooded and the increase in buildings would mean risk of water flooding higher up the road passed the banks it currently reaches. The Ponds (Clay pits) are a Health and Safety issue which would not be a safe environment for young families to live near. The Pylons which run along the site are another risk, although there is no current evidence but it is believed that the static from the Electricity is not healthy and can cause headaches and worst case Leukaemia. It would be wrong to put people in housing which is in an area with potential for health risks from Pylons. The site has for many years been a place for recreation for family walks. The fields are known by the locals as the Cow fields where many have walked their dogs and gone blackberry picking with young children. It is a site considered by the local community as a site of heritage, of how a village should be, surrounded by fields. The old Village and Toll Gate place has a place in the history of Corby and should not be obliterated by houses. There are concerns that the Council has not taken advice from the Environmental Agency and considered measurements of water levels in the winter months when the rains and snow cause the most flooding. At the resident meeting on 14th October 2009 in the Old Village someone voiced concern that what readings of the water levels that were taken were in the summer months and would not be fully representative of a full years readings. If

the Council are not in procession of the full facts it cannot make the correct decision. I have heard that the Council must request the reports from the Environmental Agency. I am not clear what reports have been done and if this information is made public. Also, at the residents meeting it was said the land has been Marked out by Surveyors. I am shocked that the surveyors are planning the housing plots. The risk factors are evident that this site in not suitable for housing and should be blocked by the Corby Council members and the planning department should take steps to stop this building on this site

31 Councillor Chris Stanbra

Not all of the area to south of Copenhagen Road should be designated for housing. Local residents would prefer it if that part known locally as "The Orchard" and the part which is bounded by The Orchard, the former SIAS Foods factory, Torksey Close, Bede Close and Bamburg Close were to be designated as Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation. This is in order to retain some part of the land to the south of Copenhagen Road for this purpose. The part that lies between OUP and Bamburg Close is acceptable as a Housing designation


HA1 Priors Hall is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Site already enjoys outline planning permission. Further planning applications should be accompanied by a FRA which should be consistent with the approved FRAs for Zones 1 and 2 and the principles set out in PPS25, as appropriate. The design of the development should take a sequential approach aiming to locate development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. The site includes a culverted section of the Willow Brook North - no development should be proposed over the culvert or within 9.0 metres. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook South should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.


HA2 Priors Hall is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. This northern part of the site has been the subject of an as yet undetermined outline application since 2004. Should outline permission be granted, any future planning application should be accompanied by a FRA which should be consistent with the principles set out in PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook North designated a ‘main river’. The site includes a culverted section of the Willow Brook North - no development should be proposed over the culvert or within 9.0 metres. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook South should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.

33 Environment HA3 Land East of Weldon is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if

Agency necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within Flood Zone 1. The allocation raises issues in relation to the means of access which may need to cross a floodplain. The issues are currently being pursued with the Council and the Local Highway Authority in relation to a planning application on the allocation area. They involve evaluating whether the means of access would constitute Essential Transport Infrastructure that may be acceptable in flood risk terms. Any other application involving the same or similar means of access would raise the same issues. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency.


HA4 Kingswood Phase 1b is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA5 Weldon Road garage is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Less than 1 ha. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA6 North of Cottingham Road is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. The allocation raises issues in relation to the means of access which needs to cross a floodplain. The issues are being pursued with the Council in respect of a current planning application and resolution will be influenced by the findings of the forthcoming revised SFRA for Corby. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any future planning application to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent permission from the Environment Agency Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the watercourse should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk.


HA7 Former Beanfield Secondary School is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA8 Former Sports Ground off Rockingham Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA9 Lindisfarne Road is within Flood Zone 1. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA10 Kingswood Phase 1a is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA11 Stephenson Way is within Flood Zone 1. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA12 Shire Lodge Auto Repairs is within Flood Zone 1. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA13 Oakley Road Garage Ltd is is partially within Flood Zones 2 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25.


HA14 Blenheim Walk is within Flood Zone 1. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA15 255 Rockingham Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA16 Evolution Corby is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA17 Central Corby is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA18 Builders Yard off Rockingham Road is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA19 Parkland Gateway is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA primarily focusing on surface water management.


HA20 Kingswood School is within Flood Zone 1. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Greater than 1 ha. Any planning application to be accompanied by a FRA

primarily focusing on surface water management. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, any culvert or works that may impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse will require prior written Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency. A culverted stretch of watercourse runs through/close to the site – no development should be proposed over or within 9metres of the culvert.


HA21 Pytchley Court is within Flood Zone 1. Less than 1ha. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA22 Danesholme Regeneration Area is within Flood Zones 2 and 3. and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. Should it be possible to satisfy the Sequential/Exception Tests the design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within those parts of the site at least risk of flooding.


HA23 Neighbourhood Centre, Oakley Vale is within Flood Zone 1. Less than 1ha. Corby Borough Council should consider flood risk issues using Environment Agency Standing Advice.


HA24 Flensburg Close is within Flood Zones 2 and 3. and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. Should it be possible to satisfy the Sequential/Exception Tests the design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within those parts of the site at least risk of flooding.


HA25 Pen Green Lane is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. Should it be possible to satisfy the Sequential/Exception Tests the design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within Flood Zone 1. Flood Defence Consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981. The prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9.0 metres of the top of the bank of the Willow Brook designated a ‘main river’. Opportunities to increase the access and easement corridor adjacent to the Willow Brook should be incorporated into the development layout and landscaping proposals as part of a strategic measure(s) to reduce flood risk from the watercourse. The Environment Agency requires a byelaw distance of 9.0 metres to remain clear to enable it to carry out its functions.


HA26 Off Stanion Lane is within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore subject to the PPS25 Sequential Test and (if necessary) the Exception Test. The test(s) must be satisfied in accordance with PPS25 prior to any grant of planning permission. Subject to PPS 25 requirement to take into account all sources of flooding by implementation of the “Sequential Approach”. Any planning applications to be accompanied by a FRA which should be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. Should it be

possible to satisfy the Sequential/Exception Tests the design should take a sequential approach aiming to locate built development within those parts of the site at least risk

Appendix 1: Site Specific Allocations DPD Summary of ... 09... · Appendix 1: Site Specific...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix 1: Site Specific Allocations DPD Summary of ... 09... · Appendix 1: Site Specific...